Skip to content

Collective Bargaining Agreement Protects Company From BIPA Suit by Non-Union Employee

July 24, 2024

On July 2, Judge Sunil Harjani of the Northern District of Illinois issued an opinion in Sanders v. E.A. Sween Company holding that an employee who was not a member of a union, but was a member of a collective bargaining unit under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”), could not bring a private action against the employer for an alleged violation of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (“BIPA”) as that claim was preempted by federal labor laws.

The plaintiff, George Sanders, was a probationary employee at E.A. Sween Company and had not yet worked long enough to be required to join the union under the CBA. He was employed as a driver and alleged that the company violated BIPA by collecting his biometric information when he clocked in and out without first providing the required disclosures or obtaining consent. The company argued that, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Sanders was not a member of the relevant union, the BIPA claim was still preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act.

Although BIPA claims often involve few defenses, the Seventh Circuit has repeatedly held that BIPA claims are preempted by federal labor laws when union members bring claims against employers “if the union [through a collective bargaining agreement] consented to the collection and use of the [biometric] data.” The parties did not dispute that the union had consented to the collection of biometric information such as fingerprints for payroll purposes under the CBA. The plaintiff argued, however, that his BIPA claim was not preempted because he was not a union member and therefore not covered by the collective bargaining agreement.

The Court noted that the Seventh Circuit had not ruled on the issue of whether an employee who was not yet a member of a union should be considered a member of the bargaining unit and covered by the consent in the CBA. Judge Harjani therefore reviewed decisions from other Courts of Appeals, and held, in agreement with those precedents, that a non-union employee performing a job encompassed within the defined bargaining unit covered by the CBA is covered by the CBA. The Court reviewed the language of the applicable description of the relevant bargaining unit from an order of the National Labor Relations Board and found that the plaintiff’s job was within the scope of that unit. Therefore, the Court held that the employee was a member of the bargaining unit and covered by the CBA.  As a result, the state law claim was preempted by the federal law of labor relations, and any claim the plaintiff had could only be brought under the grievance/arbitration provisions of the CBA.

BIPA can create significant liabilities for companies that may collect or use biometric information through fingerprint scans, facial recognition, and other means. When faced with a BIPA lawsuit seeking significant damages, it is important to immediately contact trusted legal advisors who can help identify potential defenses and strategies to limit the company’s risks.

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.

Subscribe for the latest

Subscribe

Related

Event

Clark Hill's Commercial Real Estate Symposium – Dallas, Texas

Join Clark Hill’s Commercial Real Estate attorneys and industry professionals for a timely and dynamic program in Dallas, focusing on the latest challenges and top trends in the CRE industry.

Explore more
Legal Updates

What Is Likely the Weakest Provision in Your Multi-State Lease?

Using one eminent domain lease clause across states risks lost value. Learn how state laws should reflect notice and just compensation for better protection.

Explore more
Legal Updates

Critical Risk Mitigation Provisions for Design Contracts — Part 1: Waiver of Consequential Damages

An essential element of architect and engineer contracts with their clients is the treatment of risk sharing between the parties. Design professionals who are typically simply providing services for a fee, and who are not investors who will share in the profits of a successful project, can ill-afford to expose themselves to unlimited liability for negligent errors and omissions in the performance of their services. Architects and engineers would argue that it is fundamentally unfair to expose them to unlimited downside risk when they do not directly participate in the upside profit potential of the projects they design. Owners and developers would counter that this is why design professionals carry professional liability insurance. But even simple design errors can lead to liability that is many times greater than the amount of such insurance.

Explore more